Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[6]: Gilgamesh and Genesis

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <npl AT teol.ku.dk>
  • Cc: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[6]: Gilgamesh and Genesis
  • Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 19:23:50 -0500


Perhaps Luther was simply wrong. Why should I defend him? He was
living in an age when no-one would complain at him saying that Balaam
was truly able to predict the future. I have not said that on this
list and I don't feel the need to do so, although I do not rule it our
a priori. Even conservatives today accept that Biblical prophecy is
usually about the near future rather than many centuries in advance.
There was perhaps a contemporary threat from Kittim, so why take
Balaam as referring to the distant future?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: Gilgamesh and Genesis
Author: <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date: 22/01/2000 18:39


I think you forgot that I wrote that Ilgen changed Luther from prophecy to a
vaticinium. How do you account for Luther?

NPL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> Sent: Sunday, 23 January, 2000 06:32
> To: Biblical Hebrew
> Subject: Re[4]: Gilgamesh and Genesis
>
> Ilgen's views make sense, especially to those who a priori reject real
> prophecy, but then I don't suppose he completed the circle to argue
> that Assyria is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. But did Alexander
> come by ship from Kittim/Cyprus? I thought he came overland. But the
> Sea Peoples did arrive by sea from that general direction, and at a
> time not so distant from that of Balaam soon after the Exodus. Maybe
> Balaam was just seeing the trends of current events: these Sea Peoples
> who are already arriving are going to prove disastrous for Assyria and
> "Eber".
>
> Peter Kirk
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re[3]: Gilgamesh and Genesis
> Author: <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
> Date: 22/01/2000 12:06
>
>
> And don't forget that Luther saw these verses as referring to the Romans
> (a
> prophecy). I have pointed to the fact that Karl David Ilgen in 1797
> reinterpreted Luther and saw it as a vaticinium ex eventur talking about
> Alexander.
>
> NPL
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org]
> > Sent: Saturday, 22 January, 2000 02:47
> > To: Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject: Re[2]: Gilgamesh and Genesis
> >
> > Don't forget the reference to Asshur, or Assyria, in Numbers 24:22,24,
> > on the lips of Balaam from the Euphrates (22:5) You may want to argue
> > that these verses are a later addition or evidence for late dating.
> > But beware of circular reasoning: don't excise these verses as late
> > because you assume that Assyria cannot be mentioned in the Pentateuch
> > and then argue from your edited text that Assyria is indeed not
> > mentioned in the Pentateuch.
> >
> > Peter Kirk
> >
> <snip>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page